TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that this is a case of mistake sought to be rectified under section 13 whereas the Income-tax Officer has only treated it as giving effect to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order and applying rule 2?" The real question to be decided is as to whether the order made by the Income-tax Officer, after the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruary 28, 1970, had determined the capital as Rs. 1,54,74,296. While doing so, he had allowed the assessee's claim that the advance tax paid and the tax deducted at source are not to be deducted. He revised his view after the matter was sent back by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and passed the second order on May 15, 1974, holding that those amounts should be deducted. The question now fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A process of interpretation and it was not an instance where the assessment order made earlier could be said to suffering from error which was "apparent" on the face of the record. The existence of the mistake was something which had to be discovered and it involved a process of reasoning having regard to the language employed in the Second Schedule and the decisions with regard to the scope of wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
